Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 33

Statement of Genuine Issues re: 32 Response to Motion filed by City of Hamilton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Leonard, Thomas) Modified on 5/17/2011 to create relationship to 30 Motion (APP, ).

William L. Crowley
Natasha Prinzing Jones
Thomas J. Leonard
BOONE KARLBERG P.C.
201 West Main, Suite 300
P.O. Box 9199
Missoula, MT 59807-9199
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Bitterroot Public Library,
City of Hamilton and Boone Karlberg P.C.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY,

Cause No. CV-11-064-M-DWM

Plaintiff,

CITY DEFENDANTS’
STATEMENT OF GENUINE
ISSUES IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

v.
BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,
CITY OF HAMILTON, LEE
ENTERPRISES, INC., and BOONE
KARLBERG P.C.
Defendants.

Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(b), Rules of Procedure, United States District
Court, District of Montana, Defendants Bitterroot Public Library, Dr. Robert
1

Brophy, Trista Smith, Nansu Roddy, City of Hamilton, Jerry Steele, Steve Snavely,
Steven Bruner-Murphy, Ryan Oster, Kenneth S. Bell and Jennifer B. Lint
(collectively, “City Defendants”), submit the following statement of genuine issues
in opposition to Plaintiff Michael E. Spreadbury’s (“Spreadbury”) motion for
partial summary judgment.
1.

In May or June 2009, Spreadbury met with Senior Librarian Nansu

Roddy at the Bitterroot Public Library (the “library”). (Amended Complaint, ¶ 31;
Joint Answer of Defendants Bitterroot Public Library and City of Hamilton to
Amended Complaint, ¶ 19.)
2.

Spreadbury requested that a hand-written letter written by another

person alleging local government corruption be placed on the reserve shelf of the
library. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 31; Joint Answer of Defendants Bitterroot Public
Library and City of Hamilton to Amended Complaint, ¶ 19.)
3.

Ms. Roddy, on behalf of the library, refused. (Amended Complaint, ¶

31; Joint Answer of Defendants Bitterroot Public Library and City of Hamilton to
Amended Complaint, ¶ 19.)
4.

After multiple interactions with library staff, Spreadbury was banned

from the library. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 31; Joint Answer of Defendants
Bitterroot Public Library and City of Hamilton to Amended Complaint, ¶ 19.)
2

5.

Despite the ban, witnesses reported to local law enforcement that

Spreadbury returned to the library property, and he was subsequently charged with
criminal trespass. (See Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 43-46; Joint Answer of
Defendants Bitterroot Public Library and City of Hamilton to Amended Complaint,
¶¶ 3, 21.)
6.

On February 18, 2010, based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a

jury in the City Court for the City of Hamilton found Spreadbury guilty of criminal
trespass. (See 2/18/10 City Court Verdict and 2/18/10 City Sentencing Order,
attached as Exhibit A.)
7.

While the criminal trespass charge was pending, Spreadbury

approached Ms. Roddy outside the library, and, as a result of that encounter, Ms.
Roddy sought and obtained an Order of Protection against him. (Joint Answer of
Defendants Bitterroot Public Library and City of Hamilton to Amended Complaint,
¶ 21.)
8.

Spreadbury repeatedly attempted to modify, re-litigate or otherwise

collaterally attack the Order of Protection. (Joint Answer of Defendants Bitterroot
Public Library and City of Hamilton to Amended Complaint, ¶ 21.)
9.

All attempts were denied, including a Petition for Rehearing where the

Montana Supreme Court warned Spreadbury that further legal filings against
3

Ms. Roddy “may be sanctioned by the imposition of costs, attorney’s fees and/or
other monetary or non-monetary penalties under M.R.App.P. 19(5).” (Joint
Answer of Defendants Bitterroot Public Library and City of Hamilton to Amended
Complaint, ¶ 21.)
10.

Based on Spreadbury’s encounter with Ms. Roddy, Spreadbury was

charged with felony intimidation. (Joint Answer of Defendants Bitterroot Public
Library and City of Hamilton to Amended Complaint, ¶ 21.)
11.

He pleaded no contest to the felony intimidation charge and was

sentenced on October 20, 2010. (Joint Answer of Defendants Bitterroot Public
Library and City of Hamilton to Amended Complaint, ¶ 21.)
12.

Following his plea, the charge for misdemeanor criminal trespass,

which Spreadbury had appealed, was voluntarily dismissed. (Joint Answer of
Defendants Bitterroot Public Library and City of Hamilton to Amended Complaint,
¶ 26.)
13.

Spreadbury has appealed the felony conviction and the sentence has

been stayed pending the appeal. (Joint Answer of Defendants Bitterroot Public
Library and City of Hamilton to Amended Complaint, ¶ 21.)

4

14.

The City has not admitted “to prosecuting Spreadbury for peaceful

assembly on public property,” as Spreadbury suggests. The responses cited by
Spreadbury state as follows:
2.
Admit the allegations in paragraphs 1, 30 and 117 of the
Amended Complaint.
21. Answering the allegations in paragraphs 44-46, 48 and 55 of the
Amended Complaint, admit Plaintiff was charged by the City, acting
through its City Attorney, with misdemeanor criminal trespass.
Allege that, while that charge was pending, Plaintiff approached
Nansu Roddy, and as a result of that encounter, Ms. Roddy sought and
obtained an Order of Protection against Plaintiff. Allege Plaintiff has
repeatedly attempted to modify, set aside, re-litigate or otherwise
collaterally attack the Order of Protection. Allege that, on March 15,
2011, the Montana Supreme Court entered its Order in Cause No. DA11-00117 denying Plaintiff’s Petition for Rehearing based upon the
Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure and res judicata. Allege the
Montana Supreme Court Order, filed March 15, 2011, reads, in part,
“We caution Michael from using this matter as a means of harassing
Roddy. Further pleadings filed before this Court in this matter
without good cause may be sanctioned by the imposition of costs,
attorney’s fees and/or other monetary or non-monetary penalties under
M.R.App.P. 19(5).” Admit Plaintiff was charged with felony
intimidation as a result of his contact with Ms. Roddy. Allege
Plaintiff pleaded no contest to the felony intimidation charge and was
sentenced on October 20, 2010.
57. Answering the allegations in paragraphs 169-173 of the
Amended Complaint, admit Kenneth S. Bell filed a criminal
complaint against Plaintiff. Deny the balance of the allegations in
paragraphs 169-173.
(Joint Answer of Defendants Bitterroot Public Library and City of Hamilton to
Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 2, 21, 57.)
5

15.

The City Defendants have not admitted to violating Spreadbury’s

right to free speech, as Spreadbury suggests. The “admission” upon which
Spreadbury’s arguement is based reads as follows:
19. Answering the allegations in paragraphs 31-37, 40, 41 and 57
of the Amended Complaint, admit Plaintiff attempted to persuade
Nansu Roddy and other Library staff to include a letter written by
another Bitterroot Valley resident, other than Plaintiff, to President
Obama in the Library’s collection. Admit the request was refused.
Admit Plaintiff was eventually banned from the Library. Admit
Plaintiff sent one or more letters regarding the Library’s actions.
(Individual City Defendants’ Answer, ¶19.)
16.

Spreadbury claims the City Defendants have admitted tortious and

unconstitutional conduct in revoking his library privileges. However, in the
specific response cited by Spreadbury, the City Defendants responded as follows:
19. Answering the allegations in paragraphs 31-37, 40, 41 and 57
of the Amended Complaint, admit Plaintiff attempted to persuade
Nansu Roddy and other Library staff to include a letter written by
another Bitterroot Valley resident, other than Plaintiff, to President
Obama in the Library’s collection. Admit the request was refused.
Admit Plaintiff was eventually banned from the Library. Admit
Plaintiff sent one or more letters regarding the Library’s actions.
(Individual City Defendants’ Answer, ¶19.)
17.

The City did not wrongfully restrict Spreadbury’s access to the

Ravalli Republic. As its response to Spreadbury’s complaint made clear:
20. Answering the allegations in paragraphs 38 and 39 of the
Amended Complaint, admit a representative of the Ravalli Republic
6

called the Ravalli County Dispatch concerning Plaintiff’s conduct at
the offices of the Ravalli Republic. Admit representatives of the
Hamilton Police Department responded to the Ravalli Republic.
Admit one or more representatives of the Hamilton Police Department
have told Plaintiff that the Ravalli Republic did not want Plaintiff to
enter their business offices because of his conduct.
(Joint Answer of Defendants Bitterroot Public Library and City of Hamilton to
Amended Complaint, ¶ 20.)
18.

Spreadbury argues “Defendant City of Hamilton further admits HPD

Detective Murphy investigated, published, and sent reports to Hamilton City
Attorney Bell for prosecution,” but the admission Spreadbury cites actually reads
as follows:
51. Answering the allegations in paragraphs 151-155 of the
Amended Complaint, admit Plaintiff was investigated. Deny the
balance of the allegations in these paragraphs.
(Joint Answer of Defendants Bitterroot Public Library and City of Hamilton to
Amended Complaint, ¶ 51.)
19.

Spreadbury suggests the City has admitted City Attorney Kenneth S.

Bell and Hamilton Police Chief Ryan Oster were policymakers for all purposes,
but the City’s responses read as follows:
43. Answering the allegations in paragraphs 128-131 of the
Amended Complaint, admit Kenneth S. Bell is an official policymaker
in some respects. Deny the balance of the allegations in the
paragraphs.
...
7

45. Answering the allegations in paragraphs 133-135 of the
Amended Complaint, admit Police Chief Oster is an official
policymaker in some respects. Deny the balance of the allegations in
the paragraphs.
(Joint Answer of Defendants Bitterroot Public Library and City of Hamilton to
Amended Complaint, ¶¶43, 45.)
DATED this 16th day of May, 2011.
/s/Thomas J. Leonard
Thomas J. Leonard
BOONE KARLBERG P.C.
Attorneys for Defendants
Bitterroot Public Library, City of
Hamilton and Boone Karlberg P.C.

8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on the 16th day of May, 2011, a copy of the foregoing
document was served on the following persons by the following means:
__1____

CM/ECF

_______

Hand Delivery

__2____

Mail

_______

Overnight Delivery Service

_______

Fax

_______

E-Mail

1.
2.

Clerk, U.S. District Court
Michael E. Spreadbury
700 South Fourth Street
Hamilton, MT 59840
/s/ Thomas J. Leonard
Thomas J. Leonard
BOONE KARLBERG P.C.
Attorneys for Defendants Bitterroot Public
Library, City of Hamilton,
and Boone Karlberg P.C.

9